01/23/2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

contemplate involvement of the Tax Commissioner only at equalization is a trial de novo, but only the tax liability the commissioner's discretion. See Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ questions raised before the board of equalization are 77-202.04 and 77-202.06(Reissue 1990). questions for adjudication by the district court in its appellate jurisdiction. Nebraska State Bar Found. v. In "Count II," Society alleges, in summary, that Lancaster Cry. Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 1,465 N.W.2d 111 comparable properties owned by similar organizations in (1991). See, also, Gordman Properties Co. v. Board of the State of Nebraska are exempt from taxation.As a result, Equal., 225 Neb. 169, 403 N.W.2d 366(1987) (a district Society claims that the Board's decision denying it court,acting in its appellate capacity, is without power to tax-exempt status violated Society's (I) right to equal adjudicate a question of uniformity and proportionality or treatment under the law as guaranteed by article VIII, §1, any other factual question when such question or questions of the Nebraska Constitution, and (2) right to equal have not been presented to the county board of protection as provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. equalization). Constitution. Since the district court, acting as an appellate court, lacks ANALYSIS the power, that is,jurisdiction to adjudicate the questions raised in"Count B" of Society's second amended petition A county board of equalization is an administrative agency on appeal,a of the county. Speer v.Kratzenstein, 143 Neb. 300, 12 N.W.2d 360(1943).As an administrative agency,a county Page 359 board of equalization has no authority to determine the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature. See In re higher appellate court also lacks the power to adjudicate Applications A-16027 et al., 242 Neb. 315,495 N.W.2d 23 those complaints. See Nebraska State Bar Found. v. (1993).That being true,a constitutional challenge to an act Lancaster Cty. Bd. of Equal.,supra.The district court was of the Legislature may be raised initially on appeal from a correct in dismissing the complaints in "Count II" of decision of a county board of equalization. See Society's appeal,not for the reason the district court gave, Metropolitan Utilities Dist. v.Merritt Beach[243 Neb.358] but for the reasons hereinbefore set forth. Co., 179 Neb.783, 140 N.W.2d 626(1966). The judgment of the district court for Buffalo County is In the appeal under consideration,neither of the complaints affirmed. contained in "Count II" of Society's second amended petition on appeal embrace a constitutional challenge to a AFFIRMED. legislative act. It is noted that the designation of"Count B" is foreign to the nomenclature used in this state's civil procedure to designate a cause of action. When there are multiple causes of action pleaded in civil proceedings,they should be [500 N.W.2d 525]designated numerically as "First Cause of Action,"etc. Although Society attempts to set forth two causes of action in this case,it has pleaded but one,i.e., that Society's property is tax-exempt. "Count I" sets forth one theory of recovery."Count II"merely recites additional theories or alleged factual reasons for recovery. See Interholzinger v.Estate of Dent, 214 Neb. 264, 333 N.W.2d 895 (1983), Taken in the context of the appeal in this case, the complaints embrace factual questions or reasons why Society claims its property should be exempt from taxation. That being true, these factual questions or reasons for granting tax-exempt status to Society's property should have been raised initially before the Board. Since they were not,they could not be raised in Society's appeal to the district court. An appeal from a denial of exemption from taxation for real or tangible personal property is made pursuant to § 77-202.04 and Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 77-1510 and 77-1511 (Reissue 1990). Under §77-1511, an appeal to the district court concerning a decision of a county board of